Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cycling in Waterloo Region
(09-09-2019, 05:38 PM)KevinL Wrote: This is what happens when you make good trail connections up to a road, but don't clearly mark a crossing on the road. We really need to get the Region coordinating this stuff with the cities when it involves regional roads; it's one of the biggest failings of two-tier municipal government.

This isn't a failing of a two tier municipality, this is the failing of a municipality which does not prioritize safety or care about any other user but car drivers.

In fact, the City of Kitchener lobbying (and funding) an improved trail crossing here is the ONLY reason fixing this is even on the roadmap, if this was a single tier municipality under the region, there would be nobody advocating for an improved crossing.
Reply


My point is, that isn't where things should be. If the city has indicated the importance of a trail in its transportation network, and it crosses a regional road, there should be a straightforward process for the region to put in a crossing. These levels should have a policy on working together; that they clearly don't is a failing of the system.
Reply
(09-09-2019, 07:41 PM)KevinL Wrote: My point is, that isn't where things should be. If the city has indicated the importance of a trail in its transportation network, and it crosses a regional road, there should be a straightforward process for the region to put in a crossing. These levels should have a policy on working together; that they clearly don't is a failing of the system.

I agree they should be working together, but my point is this is not an inherent flaw in a two tier system, this is the intentional act of a government that is not friendly to active transportation. The region is perfectly willing to build a trail like the IHT (see the spur line for instance) but they wouldn't put a safe crossing in....
Reply
WRPS on the job publicly shaming the critically injured cyclist for not wearing a helmet.

http://archive.is/cfQnJ

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/cyclist-airlifted-with-life-threatening-injuries-following-kitchener-crash-1.4584752
Reply
(09-10-2019, 01:07 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: WRPS on the job publicly shaming the critically injured cyclist for not wearing a helmet.

http://archive.is/cfQnJ

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/cyclist-airlifted-with-life-threatening-injuries-following-kitchener-crash-1.4584752
“Police add that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet at the time of the collision.”
This is hardly publicly shaming. It was just a fact stated by the police, most likely when asked by the reporter. WRC
Reply
(09-10-2019, 02:17 PM)creative Wrote:
(09-10-2019, 01:07 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: WRPS on the job publicly shaming the critically injured cyclist for not wearing a helmet.

http://archive.is/cfQnJ

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/cyclist-airlifted-with-life-threatening-injuries-following-kitchener-crash-1.4584752
“Police add that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet at the time of the collision.”
This is hardly publicly shaming. It was just a fact stated by the police, most likely when asked by the reporter. WRC

It absolutely is, it bears no impact on the reporting, a helmet will not prevent a collision, nor did the reporter see fit to ask/report on head injuries.  If you cannot see how including an unrelated but inflamatory piece of information in a report is public shaming well, I can't help you there.
Reply
They didn't release that information in response to a reporter's inquiry, they included it in the public incident report.

https://web.archive.org/save/https://www...4cc744312f
Reply


Did they say that wearing a helmet would prevent a collision? No! Does it say that the pedestrian was at fault! No! Were the police at fault for the collision. No! I’ve crashed my bike many times where a helmet saved me much more serious injury. WRC
Reply
(09-10-2019, 04:27 PM)creative Wrote: Did they say that wearing a helmet would prevent a collision? No! Does it say that the pedestrian was at fault! No! Were the police at fault for the collision. No! I’ve crashed my bike many times where a helmet saved me much more serious injury. WRC

Well, thanks for clarifying that you don't understand what victim blaming is...

Including irrelevant, unrelated information, that has an inflamatory and misleading effect on readers of the story is victim blaming.

Are you honestly going to sit here and argue that people will not judge the cyclist more harshly if they are hit while not wearing a helmet?  You know they will.  That's why including the irrelevant and unrelated detail of the helmet is victim blaming.
Reply
The City of Kitchener in partnership with the Cycling and Trail Advisory Committee is organizing a bike ride of the new Queens Blvd. and Belmont Ave. protected bike lane pilot.

Details: It will coincide with Bestival this Friday
Departing: Belmont Ave. and Union St. at 6 PM
Duration: ~30 minutes

This is an all ages and abilities event.

   

   


Attached Files
.pdf   Belmont Bike Ride Flyer 2.pdf (Size: 47.38 KB / Downloads: 137)
.pdf   Queens and Belmont Lane Diagram.pdf (Size: 54.99 KB / Downloads: 132)
Reply
(09-10-2019, 06:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-10-2019, 04:27 PM)creative Wrote: Did they say that wearing a helmet would prevent a collision? No! Does it say that the pedestrian was at fault! No! Were the police at fault for the collision. No! I’ve crashed my bike many times where a helmet saved me much more serious injury. WRC

Well, thanks for clarifying that you don't understand what victim blaming is...

Including irrelevant, unrelated information, that has an inflamatory and misleading effect on readers of the story is victim blaming.

Are you honestly going to sit here and argue that people will not judge the cyclist more harshly if they are hit while not wearing a helmet?  You know they will.  That's why including the irrelevant and unrelated detail of the helmet is victim blaming.

I don't know if I can agree with it being irrelevant and unrelated.

There is a difference between "A cyclist was sent to hospital after being hit by (the driver of) a car.  The cyclist was not wearing a helmet" and "A cyclist received minor injuries after being hit by (the driver of) a car.  The cyclist was wearing a helmet and declined medical attention."

You may think it's shaming... I see it as public education to encourage those who bike to wear a helmet.

This is very similar to when there is a car accident and they mention driver "was not wearing a seat belt" or "was under the influence of alcohol/drugs".  You can say the fact the driver was drunk is not relevant, I say I want everyone to know what happens when you drink and drive.

Coke
Reply
(09-11-2019, 10:11 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: This is very similar to when there is a car accident and they mention driver "was not wearing a seat belt" or "was under the influence of alcohol/drugs".  You can say the fact the driver was drunk is not relevant, I say I want everyone to know what happens when you drink and drive.

I mostly agree with your general point. In this specific case, information about whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet was a statement of fact in the accident report.

However, I don't believe this is an accurate comparison to make. Not wearing a seat belt and driving while under the influence are illegal. An adult gets to choose whether or not they wear a helmet. If you want to pull an example from the world of automobiles, it should be one where it is or was optional. Raising the issue of whether or not a driver was wearing a safety belt before the laws became widespread might be a good way to use your example. I grew up in the 80s and it was probably half and half who did and didn't wear a seat belt. True for drunk driving too: By including safety-related information in the reporting on the subject the culture changed and laws were passed.

That's still imperfect though. The safety value of helmets is not quite as well proven as that of seat belts, and there is still reasonable debate on the subject.
Reply
(09-11-2019, 10:21 AM)robdrimmie Wrote: I mostly agree with your general point. In this specific case, information about whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet was a statement of fact in the accident report.

However, I don't believe this is an accurate comparison to make. Not wearing a seat belt and driving while under the influence are illegal. An adult gets to choose whether or not they wear a helmet. If you want to pull an example from the world of automobiles, it should be one where it is or was optional. Raising the issue of whether or not a driver was wearing a safety belt before the laws became widespread might be a good way to use your example. I grew up in the 80s and it was probably half and half who did and didn't wear a seat belt. True for drunk driving too: By including safety-related information in the reporting on the subject the culture changed and laws were passed.

That's still imperfect though. The safety value of helmets is not quite as well proven as that of seat belts, and there is still reasonable debate on the subject.

I'll go a bit farther and say that establishing an expectation that people have to wear helmets is, in my opinion, harmful to establishing a cycling culture. In the Netherlands, that expectation is absent, and there are a lot more people riding bicycles, which in turn leads to safety-in-numbers. I am not personally convinced that helmets do anything at puttering-along speeds except for getting fewer people to ride bicycles. I am pretty convinced that places with mandatory helmet laws (e.g. Australia) fail to get cycling modeshare.
Reply


(09-11-2019, 10:11 AM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(09-10-2019, 06:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Well, thanks for clarifying that you don't understand what victim blaming is...

Including irrelevant, unrelated information, that has an inflamatory and misleading effect on readers of the story is victim blaming.

Are you honestly going to sit here and argue that people will not judge the cyclist more harshly if they are hit while not wearing a helmet?  You know they will.  That's why including the irrelevant and unrelated detail of the helmet is victim blaming.

I don't know if I can agree with it being irrelevant and unrelated.

There is a difference between "A cyclist was sent to hospital after being hit by (the driver of) a car.  The cyclist was not wearing a helmet" and "A cyclist received minor injuries after being hit by (the driver of) a car.  The cyclist was wearing a helmet and declined medical attention."

You may think it's shaming... I see it as public education to encourage those who bike to wear a helmet.

This is very similar to when there is a car accident and they mention driver "was not wearing a seat belt" or "was under the influence of alcohol/drugs".  You can say the fact the driver was drunk is not relevant, I say I want everyone to know what happens when you drink and drive.

Coke

This does not suport it.  You are attempting "public education" the method which you are attempting to do that is by shaming the victim of a collision.

This is absolutely different from "drinking and driving" because unlike wearing a helmet, being drunk does make you more likely to crash.

As for seatbelts, you're right, I do think if a vulnerable road user was injured in a collision, I'd also object to randomly pointing out that they weren't wearing a seatbelt.

Even your example is false, you pretense the belief that a cyclist cannot be injured seriously if they are wearing a helmet. In this case, we do not even know if they sustained head injuries.
Reply
I guess we will agree to disagree.

I knew the legal vs. illegal argument would be made, but as mentioned by Rob, that's how things change.

I see it as a fact. They were/were not wearing a helmet. They had/did not have a bell. Bike was/was not road worthy.

To me victim shaming is more of something that effects zero percent of the outcome. ie. "She was dressed like she wanted it.". I guess the argument can be made that the helmet didn't effect the outcome, so maybe I'm wrong....

Coke
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: prisecaru0, 17 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links